The attempted rebuttal (February 21) by Mepa’s PR manager, Peter Gingell, of comments (Planned Supermarket Outside Xewkija, February 14) on the approval of an out-of-town supermarket is based on misrepresentation of the contents of the letter in question.
Gingell starts by misquoting the letter as stating that “all small neighbourhood grocers, butchers and greengrocers will be wiped out” whereas the letter reasonably stated that “moving shopping out of towns rob urban streets of the vibrancy they once had with people out shopping on foot at corner stores or street vendors”. The letter in question also said that such developments “continue to spell the end of village and town cores with erosion of the social function of streets, which become mere conduits for motor transport to distant supermarkets”.
On the randomly selected photograph of a grocery shop that closed “quite a number of years ago”, Gingell himself concedes this point by stating that it is “inevitable that opening of any retail outlet, be it small or large, will impact a neighbouring competitor”. To say that a retail impact study clearly showed that the trade diverted to the supermarket (near Xewkija) would have “no unacceptable impact” on existing retail facilities is mere play on words. On what validated criteria did Mepa define an “acceptable” impact? And what walking distance does Mepa consider acceptable for old people to carry their shopping if they don’t have a car?
Most important of all, in his reply, Gingell studiously avoided the key issue of the letter, namely, recommendations by WHO to seek solutions to the health challenges of an aging population by providing an urban environment that encourages a healthy lifestyle.
It is now generally accepted that everything should be done to ensure that our aging population remains physically and mentally active into old age because this has been shown to delay the onset, or even reduce the likelihood, of developing the three big Ds: dementia, depression and diabetes. This is all the more important when one considers that Malta is expected to become one of the EU countries most subject to an aging population in coming decades. If no measures are taken today to provide an age-friendly environment aimed at keeping old (and young) people physically active, self-reliant and engaged in civic life as long as possible, the future costs of ill-health in our aged population will escalate
The bottom line is this: Mepa should be more than a department that rubber stamps anything provided it is legal without including their public health implications. It must be repeated: as long as Mepa continues giving the go-ahead to such projects, it demonstrates its indifference to current realities by putting big business – and profit for the few – before peoples’ future well-being. If Mepa doesn’t feel sufficiently strongly about the health, social and environmental impacts of such developments, then the Health Department should.